On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Christian Mohn (h0bbel) <[email protected]>wrote:
> No, it's not a Javascript library now, is it? The point was that as long > as we actively used BP in our admin section we should make it generally > available to themers. Now that we don't use it anymore, that particular > reason is moot. > > As I said, I don't think there is an online version we can just link to, > and why should we? If we don't use it, we don't use it. > We do use it. Until someone rewrites Mzingi to stop using it, we're arguing for absolutely no reason. > I see that there are other arguments, like we should provide a css > framework for themers. I agree about that, but should it be BP? Why not > 960.gs? Or any of the others? Including BP in our "core" distribution > seems, to me at least, to give it some kind of official Habari stamp of > approval. If that's the case, we should really be eating our own dogfood and > use it. Considering that we don't, well, we don't. We include jQuery, but > then again we do use that. > I think you vastly over-emphasize the weight a "Habari stamp of approval" would carry... > What might be interesting, from a themes point of view, are which options > are available to them. I think the best way to provide this to the themes > would be to build example themes using different frameworks. If someone with > real theming abilities would sit down and create a sample BP theme, a sample > 960.gs theme, etc we could document it on the Wiki and let the themers > themselves decide which framework, if any, they want to use? Doing that > seems to be a bit more Habari-like than anything else. > > > > Another point is that we include BP 0.4 from the google code repository. > That repo has been abandoned since, as far as I can see, the summer of 2008. > Why should we be including an old outdated version from a repo that isn't > maintained anymore? The latest BP version is 0.8. … > Because no one has bothered to update it. Feel free... > > > Christian > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Chris Meller > *Sent:* 23. februar 2009 01:51 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [habari-dev] Re: BluePrint > > > > The latest copy of blueprint we include was from Google Code at > http://code.google.com/p/blueprintcss/. > > > I don't know that we'd be able to include it properly directly from the > Google Code SVN (ie: Mozilla requires that it have a text/css content-type), > but I presume that's what we're talking about. > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Sean Coates <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Why are we discussing a google-code hosted BP when afaik is none? BP > > is > > developed on github now, and I don't think you can just include it. > > As for removing it, well, I don't have a strong opinion. > > I assumed we were talking about this: > http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/documentation/ > > But it seems blueprint isn't there (jQuery is, though). > > > S > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
